Three Common Objections from Abortion Supporters

In honor of National Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, I want to share three common objections (and answers to these objections) that I see when interacting with abortion supporters (people who typically describe themselves as “pro-choice”). (As an aside, no one would make a distinction between actually supporting thievery itself and supporting a thief’s choice to steal… but I digress.)

1. The Less Government Argument

I thought conservatives believed in less government.

Even the most staunch, stay-out-of-my-business, minimalist-government, Ayn Rand loving libertarian supports laws that prohibit a human from harming another human.

2. The Capital Punishment Argument

How can you be pro-life and support capital punishment?

While abortion and capital punishment both deal with killing a human, the key distinction is that the human inside of her mother’s womb is innocent while a person duly convicted of a capital crime is not.

3. The My Body Argument

You men just want to interfere with a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body.

This is a strawman argument. It’s a logical fallacy where someone fails to accurately represent the other’s argument or point of view. Those who are pro-life (men and women) fully believe that women (and men) should have the right to choose what to do concerning their own bodies. However, since we believe that the fetus is a human being, the right a woman has over her own body does not trump the rights of the human that is living and growing inside of her.

Conclusion

This obviously doesn’t cover all of the arguments raised by abortion supporters, but they are three arguments that I see popping up all the time in various forums. The “My Body” argument is perhaps the most common argument, but it presupposes that the fetus is actually the woman’s body and not a separate human being. This presupposition is ridiculous on its face since no human being has two hearts, two sets of lungs, two livers, etc. etc. ad nausiam. You get the point. Perhaps I’ll write another article covering this specific aspect, but suffice it to say, with exceptions for severe deformities from growing up next to nuclear reactors (and other abnormalities of nature), each human on Planet Earth is assigned one heart. The pregnant woman is a human and the fetus growing in the womb is another human. They both bear the image of God.

And you ignore the socioeconomic impact part of the question. You claim that the unborn aren’t human and yet you also say that only women get to make that decision because they’re the incubators as it were.

That’s not defense of females as “right-bearing” members of society; that one-sided sexism that says that women need special privileges – but never responsibilities – because of their gender.

Hence, all of your arguments in favor of baby killing have been exposed as mere excuses for some Feminist ideology that wants ALL the privileges of the days when chivalry was allowed yet none of the restrictions of that time or the responsibilities that men have always endured.

So, rather than arguing against yourself, perhaps it would good to argue against what I actually said. Furthermore when you base your argument on assertions I did not make, it makes the rest of what you say, erroneous.

yet you also say that only women get to make that decision because they’re the incubators as it were.

It would be nice if you responded to the my argument, not the one you think I made. I’ll quote what my argument actually was:

1. Bodily autonomy is the right to decide how your own body is used.
2. Pregnancy is the use of a woman’s body.
C. A woman has the right to decide if her body is to be used for pregnancy or not.

There. The idea now is that you pick a premise that you think is weak and then demonstrate how it doesn’t follow or is false.

That’s not defense of females as “right-bearing” members of society; that one-sided sexism that says that women need special privileges

I wasn’t aware that use of a woman’s internal organs was a special privilege. Could you please point me to a legitimate source that says which parts of the body male or female are specially privileged? I would really like to know about such important information for future reference.

Or, we can go with the idea we, in western society, already have a notion of bodily autonomy and that women, if they are to be regarded as fully human, must have full share in in.

Hence, all of your arguments in favor of baby killing

Your conclusion doesn’t follow, as you’ve been arguing against your version of what I’ve said, as opposed to what I have been saying. And really, just for accuracy sake, a fetus isn’t a baby, but full marks for going for the appeal to emotion.

some Feminist ideology that wants ALL the privileges of the days when chivalry was allowed yet none of the restrictions of that time

Wow, it sounds like you have serious qualms with the notion that women should be treated like human beings as opposed to property. Said qualms however are not particularly relevant here.

I’d be happy to briefly discuss feminism with you on my blog (briefly, I say as you have demonstrated, ad nauseam, your impervious nature with regards to reasonable argument – plus I haven’t banhammered anyone in awhile ). But discussing feminism here is OT and a disservice to our host, and I shall not comment further.

It appears that you would not object to a mother having her 40 week old unborn baby killed

I’m sorry, but are you saying that we should ban abortion because of a situation that happens less than 1% of the time? The vast majority of pregnancies that are terminated are well within the first trimester.

Again, you have ignored my arguments.

Instead you’ve posited an absurd hypothetical situation. This is not an argument, nor is it a justification for taking away a woman’s status as a rights bearing member of society.

Yep. I was striving to keep it within America’s borders though, which was the only reason I didn’t reference Hitler’s statement. Well that and I know that Arbourist is an anti-Semite and didn’t want to set her off on another Elders of Zion rant.

So since the baby inside the womb requires the body of the mother to survive, you feel there is no moral requirement of the mother to keep the baby alive while in the womb and dependent upon the mother. Based on that premise, what moral obligation is there to continue to keep the baby alive after birth?

you feel there is no moral requirement of the mother to keep the baby alive while in the womb and dependent upon the mother.

Each woman faces a different situation when it comes to her pregnancy. It should be her choice whether she wants to start, or expand her family. She is the being best able to evaluate her socioeconomic situation and potential future of her and her family.

How is trusting women to do what is best for themselves and their families not a moral choice?

Based on that premise,

That premise was assigned to my arguments by you, and was not made by myself. Perhaps you have an answer? But then you’d be arguing with your interpretations of my arguments rather than what I’m saying, which may not be the most productive use of your time.

what moral obligation is there to continue to keep the baby alive after birth?

Do you really believe that there is no difference between being inside the uterus and being outside the uterus? I’m guessing that you do, but are trying to link the idea that we should assign the rights of a born person has to one that has not been born yet.

Born and unborn are two distinct categories and when it comes to this particular debate, it usually does not strengthen your argumentative case – unless of course you are prepared to call and treat your breakfast omelet as if it was a “chicken” and the acorns in your seed nursery as if they were “oak trees”. Making such assertions flirts with absurdity, and I would caution against doing so.

You’re argument is cogent for contraception but not for the killing of an unborn child…unless you’re claiming that women need special privileges to avoid what they perceive as negative consequences to their choices.

As a side note, what about that man’s right to choose whether or not he wants to start, or expand his family? I’m sure you’d be against any man telling a woman to have an abortion, but what demanding she have one or lose all claims to him and his money in support of that child, assuming of course he engaged in good faith behavior to prevent conception or was assured by her that she was biologically or chemically infertile?

1. Bodily autonomy is the right to decide how your own body is used.
2. Pregnancy is the use of a woman’s body.
C. A woman has the right to decide if her body is to be used for pregnancy or not.

Common Objections.

1. But the fetus is a human being.

A: Assign whatever level of humanity you’d like to the fetus. Its rights do not extend to curtailing the bodily autonomy of another person. Just like if another adult needed my kidney to live, I am not obligated to give up any part of body – even if it is to save a life.

1A. But the woman chose to have sex.

A: Coitus is not a rights remover. Woman have the same right to bodily autonomy both pre and post sex.

2. The rights of the fetus trump those of the women.

A: Slavery should not be permissible in society. Being forced to give birth, that is use of one’s body against one’s will is the very definition of slavery.

We take bodily autonomy very seriously in our society – our organs cannot be harvested without our consent, even in death our consent is required. Yet, you would argue that women cannot terminate their pregnancies; thus giving them less rights than the dead. Clearly, an unacceptable situation if women possessing full human being status is of any importance to you.

3. But god says….

A: Irrelevant. Because my god says you are poopy-head and has better hats. Thus we should safely leave magic and mythology out of the argumentation.

4. But what about prominence of sex selective abortions?

A: Devaluing women is nothing new in patriarchal societies. Combating the trend by giving women less human rights and second class status (incubators) will not improve women’s status in society.

They both bear the image of God.

This is a belief, not a fact. In a free country, you don’t get to impose your beliefs on others. Concomitantly, arguments based on beliefs, rather than fact, approach irrelevance and thus should be dismissed if rational debate is a desired goal.